Are Canada’s health systems capable of innovation? Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada lags its peers in health systems innovation. Ten years after the federal Advisory Panel on Healthcare Innovation released its report, progress remains limited. In this issue, Manns et al. (2025) revisit the recommendations of the report, assess progress and propose a path forward, including establishing a well-funded innovation agency, advancing interoperable data systems, shifting to value-based funding and fostering patient engagement. The lead essay (Manns et al. 2025), along with the rich and insightful commentaries, highlight both systemic barriers and opportunities for change. Despite past inertia, these strategies offer hope for building an innovation-ready health system capable of meeting future challenges.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".